VG Köln - 25 K 2138/19
From GDPRhub
| VG Köln - 25 K 2138/19 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | VG Köln (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 16 GDPR § 12 Bundesmeldegesetz (Federal Registration Act) |
| Decided: | 25.03.2022 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 25 K 2138/19 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:DE:VGK:2022:0325.25K2138.19.00 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Justiz-online (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The Administrative Court of Cologne held that rectification of data under Article 16 GDPR requires the data subject to prove that the data designated to replace the inaccurate data is accurate itself.
English Summary
Facts
In March 2019, the data subject requested rectification of his registered address from the controller, a municipality. According to him, he had lived at different addresses in the 1980s which did not show up in the record. The controller refused, arguing that it had no further data about the data subject and that the file had been archived already, meaning that it could not be edited anymore.
In April 2019, the data subject brought an action against the controller in court. He argued that the controller had no good reason or legal basis to refuse the rectification. The controller claimed that the data subject had not proven that the data were inaccurate. Since the dates concerned were over 30 years in the past, it had no obligation to keep further documents or records since the retention periods had expired in the meantime. Furthermore, the data subject had violated his obligation to register every relocation which would have allowed a correct and seamless documentation of this information.
Holding
The Administrative Court of Cologne (Verwaltungsgericht Köln - VG Köln) dismissed the data subject's claim.
Initially, the court discussed whether the claim was inadmissible because it doubted that the data subject had a legitimate interest for legal relief in the first place. Such interest does not exist when the lawsuit can obviously not bring a plaintiff any legal or factual advantages. It criticised that the data subject had not substantiated why he had an interest in the rectification of data older than 30 years. It further agreed with the controller that it was partly the the data subject's own fault that the register was not up to date because he himself failed to comply with his obligations to re-register after each relocation.
However, the court did not finally decide on the admissibility because it found the claim to be unsubstantiated anyhow. First, the court established that the only basis for the data subject's claim was Article 16 GDPR, as § 12 Bundesmeldegesetz (BMG - Federal Registration Act) clarifies. Then, it held that the legal requirements of Article 16 GDPR were not fulfilled. According to the court, Article 16 GDPR requires that the data processed by the controller are objectively incorrect, and, at the same time, the data designated to replace the inaccurate data must be factually correct itself. While the court did not rule out the possibility that the data held by the controller were inaccurate, it found that the data subject did not prove that the data provided by him was factually correct, because the documents submitted by him partly contradicted his previous statements. Since the burden of proof was on the data subject, the court dismissed his claim.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.
1fact
The plaintiff requests the correction of the population register.
3In a letter dated March 20, 2019, the defendant sent the plaintiff registration information on his person in accordance with Section 10 (1) No. 1 of the Federal Registration Act (BMG) applicable at the time.
4The self-disclosure for the plaintiff contains, among other things, the following information:
5 "Current or last current address in the area of responsibility:
6
Indent
abstract
C H , B N 0 Street
12/08/1982
09/21/1989
7[...]
8 other addresses
9Status
residential addresses within
Indent
abstract
Registration/deregistration
University of Applied Sciences
C H , B N Street 0
12/08/1982
09/21/1989
/
Residential addresses outside (including foreign countries before 11/01/2015)
RMW
L , E 00 Street
09/21/1989
/
currently
L , B1 . - street 00
12/02/1982
/
10”
11According to the information in the self-disclosure, the abbreviation FHW stands for "former main residence", the abbreviation RMW for "re-registration apartment" and the abbreviation ZZW for "additional apartment".
12 On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff applied, among other things, for the address to be changed so that between January 1, 1988 and October 31, 1988 he was not “B. N.-Straße 00 ”in C. H., but lived in L. in the“ I .------------------- The defendant rejected this request for a change in a letter dated March 29, 2019. As justification, she stated that no further data was stored for the plaintiff. The data record is already archived; Subsequent additions to archived registration documents are not possible.
13The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on April 5, 2019.
14He is of the opinion that the data in the residents' register are also incorrect as evidenced by the defendant's administrative processes. Not even the defendant himself disputes this. The defendant's refusal to delete incorrect data due to archiving that has already been carried out lacks any factual or legal basis. The defendant is holding back administrative procedures that proved the inaccuracy of the data. This is also evident from the registration files of his wife and son. He himself had extensive, registration-related correspondence with the defendant, who proved the incorrectness.
15 The plaintiff submitted the latter after a corresponding court request (letter from the city of L. to the company G. T. GmbH dated August 16, 1988, confirmation of registration at the defendant’s residents’ registration office from 1982, briefs from the defendant’s residents’ registration office dated January 24, 2000 and October 6, 1992 to the plaintiff’s son, fine notice from the defendant’s office for public order to the plaintiff dated February 21, 1989, letter to the plaintiff and his wife as builders from the defendant’s building regulations office dated December 22, 1987, dated December 17 February 1988, dated April 21, 1988 and July 6, 1988, tax notice from the defendant's tax office addressed to the plaintiff's wife dated March 15, 1988 and a judgment of the Cologne Finance Court dated April 26, 1989 (3 K 1270/89) ). Reference is made to these documents for details.
16In a brief dated January 27, 2022, the plaintiff requested that the case files be submitted to the competent public prosecutor’s office “on suspicion of document offenses pursuant to § 274 StGB” and that the proceedings be suspended until the public prosecutor’s investigations have been completed or the administrative files owed by the defendant have been submitted.
17In the matter he requests almost verbatim,
18, repealing the defendant's decision of March 29, 2019, to order the defendant to open the defendant's residents' register with regard to the following data recorded there:
19 "Current or last current address in the area of responsibility: C. H., B. N. -strasse 00 -Entry: 08.12.1982 -Extract: September 21, 1989"
20 to correct and amend as follows:
21 1. "Current or last current address in the area of responsibility: C. H., B. N. -straße 00 -Entry: 08.12.1982 -Extract: December 31, 1987, arrival 01.11.1988 -Extract: 21.09.1989"
22 2. "Other addresses:
23 Residential addresses within:
24 FHW C. H., B. N.-Straße 00-Entry: 08.12.1982-Extract: December 31, 1987, arrival 01.11.1988-Extract: September 21, 1989 "
25 Residential addresses outside of:
26 RMW L. , E. -straße 00, moved in: September 21, 1989
27 ZZW L. , I.--------straße 00, excerpt: October 31, 1988
28 RMW L. , I.--------straße 00, moving in: 01.01.1988
29 ZZW L , B1. -strasse 00, excerpt: 02.12.1982."
30 The defendant requests that
31 dismiss the action.
32She explains that it is neither recognizable nor proven what legal interest there is in changing the data and that the data is incorrect or incomplete within the meaning of § 12 BMG. In addition to the information contained in the administrative process, she did not have any further or older findings, records or documents, in particular not those from the times mentioned by the plaintiff, which were now well over 30 years ago. Corresponding retention periods had already expired years ago.
33 A prerequisite for a change in the population register is that the entries made there are incorrect or incomplete, and that the correct date, in accordance with the registration regulations, is entered instead of the incorrect date. These eligibility requirements were not met. It is up to the plaintiff to present and prove the inaccuracy of the population register. The defendant only finds out about the registration situation outside of its urban area if the person subject to registration registers properly at his new place of residence. The documents introduced by the plaintiff could not prove the incorrectness of the defendant's area of responsibility. The move-in on December 8, 1982 at N. -straße 00 in C. H. should be undisputed. The same applies to the move out on September 21, 1989. The attached documents give just as little concrete evidence for an interim move out on December 31, 1987 as for an interim move back in on November 1, 1988. As a current query from the registration portal of the NRW authorities shows , the plaintiff's picture of the apartment was inconsistent and for the authorities - even currently - not comprehensible. Due to the considerable passage of time, it is no longer comprehensible why the plaintiff's deregistration on April 11, 1988, which can be found in the plaintiff's documents, can no longer be taken from the current population register, which is unknown. However, it would have been up to the plaintiff himself to contribute to the correct and complete documentation of his registration data by fulfilling his reporting obligation.
34Regarding the factual and disputed status, reference is made to the content of the court files and the administrative process involved.
35reasons for the decision
36The chamber was able to negotiate and decide in the oral hearing despite the plaintiff's absence, since he was informed of this possibility in the summons of February 28, 2022, Section 102 (2) VwGO.
37 Contrary to the plaintiff's request, the Chamber was not required to suspend the proceedings pursuant to § 94 VwGO. The plaintiff's request to submit the court files to the public prosecutor's office "on suspicion of document offenses pursuant to § 274 StGB" and to suspend the disputed court proceedings until the public prosecutor's investigations have been completed or until the "administrative files owed by the defendant" have been submitted. According to § 94 VwGO, if the decision of the legal dispute depends in whole or in part on the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship that is the subject of another pending legal dispute or is to be determined by an administrative authority, the court can order that the hearing be continued until the settlement of the other legal dispute or pending the decision of the administrative authority. The conditions for suspending the proceedings under Section 94 VwGO were not met. Such investigations by the public prosecutor in relation to document offenses would not constitute a legal relationship on which the decision on the subject of the dispute here depended. Because even if the result of the investigations by the public prosecutor, which are not yet pending, were that there was sufficient suspicion according to § 170 Paragraph 1 StPO because of the suppression of documents according to § 274 StGB in relation to the administrative processes of the defendants in question, this would have no influence on the local legal dispute . If the public prosecutor's office established such a sufficient suspicion of a crime, it would not provide any information on the question at issue here, whether the population register for the year 1988 was incorrect and, in particular, whether the change of address in that period, which differed from the population register, was correct. Irrespective of this, the court does not see any indication that the defendants or their employees are liable to prosecution if they have fulfilled an objective and, above all, subjective offense of a document offense according to §§ 276 ff. StGB. In this respect, the court saw no reason to forward the files to the competent public prosecutor's office. The submission of further "due" administrative files is not a legal relationship within the meaning of Section 94 VwGO, and certainly not one that would be the subject of another pending legal dispute or would be determined by an administrative authority. In addition, the court does not doubt that the defendant has no further administrative procedures which it is obligated to submit (on this in detail below).
38The lawsuit is unsuccessful.
39So it is already questionable whether the combined action for avoidance and performance,
40cf. on the poor administrative act quality of a correction of the population register: Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of May 24, 2017 - 16 E 1119/16 -, juris para. 11 f.; Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 10, 2020 - 1 S 397/19 -, juris para. 26; a.A.: Süssmuth in: Süssmuth, Federal Registration Act, 31st supplementary delivery, § 12 correction and supplementation of data, para. 12,
41is permissible.
42It is doubtful whether there is a need for legal protection for such a claim for correction relating solely to the period from December 31, 1987 to October 31, 1988 with regard to a change of address in the meantime. The need for legal protection presupposes that an interest worthy of legal protection is being pursued. This is missing if the action obviously cannot bring any legal or factual advantages to the plaintiff. For the court it is not clear what advantages such a correction of the population register in relation to an interim change of address of "B. N.-Straße 00 ”in C. H. in the" i .--------------------- Straße 00 "in L. for a few months (from January 1, 1988 to October 31, 1988) for one more than 30 Years ago period could have. The plaintiff has not presented any such evidence. This applies not least because the plaintiff himself is to blame for the fact that the population register does not seem to correspond to the actual circumstances. Because he himself failed to comply with his registration obligations and to change his registration, although he was clearly informed of this obligation. He received a fine from the defendant's Office for Public Order dated February 21, 1989 for violating Section 13 (1) and (2) of the then applicable registration law for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (obligation to register) with regard to the persons in question here change of address.
43Whether these circumstances are sufficient to deny a need for legal protection,
44 on this: Kühling/Buchner/Herbst, 3rd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 16 Rn. 14 with further references,
45can remain open.
In any case, the lawsuit is unfounded.
47The defendant's decision of March 29, 2019 is lawful and does not violate the plaintiff's rights, Section 113 (1) sentence 1 VwGO. He is not entitled to the alleged right to correction.
48It can be left open whether the correction of the population register with regard to the plaintiff's addresses between the end of 1987 and the end of October 1988 due to the archiving of the corresponding data record is technically not feasible, i.e. impossible within the meaning of § 275 BGB, as the defendant claims .
49Because the complaint is already unfounded for other reasons.
50Starting from the legal basis of Art. 16 S. 1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 on the protection of natural persons with the processing of personal data, which is the only possible legal basis at the relevant point in time (1.). , on the free movement of data and on the repeal of Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, OJ L 119 of May 4, 2016, p. 1, GDPR) in conjunction with § 12 p. 1 BMG (2.) the plaintiff has the asserted, to supplement the change of address in the period between December 31, 1987 and October 31, 1988. It is not certain with the certainty required for the judicial formation of conviction that the plaintiff fulfills the eligibility requirements of Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR for the desired correction (3.). Further measures to clarify the facts regarding the addresses of the plaintiff between December 31, 1987 and October 31, 1988 are not to be taken (4.). The decision on the burden of proof that must therefore be taken is to the detriment of the plaintiff (5.).
511
The factual and legal situation at the time of the oral hearing of the Chamber is decisive for examining the merits of the action.
53Which point in time is decisive for the merits of an action is not determined by procedural law, but is to be assessed according to the underlying substantive law in the respective case. Decisive for the decision of a court are the legal provisions that apply at the time of the decision for the assessment of the claim, regardless of whether it is a declaratory, performance, rescission or obligation action.
54Cf. Federal Administrative Court, judgment of November 3, 1994 - 3 C 17.92 -, juris para. 23; Stuhlfauth, in: Bader et al., VwGO, 7th edition, § 113 marginal number 34.
If the plaintiff – as here – asserts a substantive claim against the legal entity of the authority to carry out an action, the factual and legal situation at the time of the court decision is decisive for the question of the existence of the claim, if the law applicable at this point in time is not expressly or implicitly orders that it is generally not yet relevant for the facts in question or that at least for claims that were applied for in the past, the time of the application should remain relevant.
56Cf. Federal Administrative Court, judgment of November 3, 1994, loc. cit., paragraph 23 f.; Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 10, 2020, loc. cit., para. 30 et seq.; Wolff, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO, 5th edition, § 113 marginal note 102 ff.
572.
58 Based on this, Art. 16 GDPR in conjunction with § 12 BMG in the version of November 20, 2019 (new version) is decisive for the claim for correction asserted by the plaintiff.
59According to Section 12 sentence 1 BMG new version, Section 6 paragraph 1 sentence 2 (BMG new version) applies accordingly if the registration authority has corrected or completed the data at the request of the person concerned in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. With this new version, the legislator wanted to make it clear that in the area of the right to report, the right to correction results directly from Art. 16 DSGVO.
60Cf. Justification of the federal government’s draft law, Bundestag printed paper 19/4674, page 224.
61According to Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the person responsible (cf. Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR) to immediately correct incorrect personal data concerning them. In accordance with Art. 16 Sentence 2 GDPR, you also have the right, taking into account the purposes of the processing, to request the completion of incomplete personal data. These provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 25, 2016 and have been in force since May 25, 2018 (cf. Art. 99 GDPR) in conjunction with § 12 S. 1 BMG in the version of November 20, 2019 are also available applicable to the present case.
62Cf. Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 10, 2020, loc.cit., para. 32 et seq.
633.
64Measured against the requirements of Art. 16 GDPR, the action is unfounded.
65It is not certain with the certainty required for the judicial formation of conviction that the plaintiff meets the eligibility requirements of Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR for the desired correction.
66According to Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the “correction” of “incorrect personal data” concerning them from the person responsible without delay. The plaintiff's address is a "personal data" (a)). However, the Chamber is unable to form the necessary certainty that the plaintiff's request to have a change of address entered in the population register between the end of 1987 and October 1988 is based on the "correction" of an "incorrect “ Datum (b)).
67a)
68The plaintiff requests the correction of a "personal date" within the meaning of Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR.
69The factual feature of "personal data" includes all information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person - the "data subject" within the meaning of the GDPR (Art. 4 No. 1 Hs. 1 GDPR), including the Location data explicitly listed in the provision, and therefore also the residential addresses at issue here.
70b)
71 However, it has not been proven that the plaintiff's request not to be entered in the population register as "B. N. -straße 00" in C. H. , but in "I.-------straße 00" in L. to be registered as a resident within the meaning of Art. 16 Sentence 1 DSGVO on the "correction" of an "incorrect" date.
72 The factual element of "inaccuracy" - which is part of Union law and must therefore be interpreted autonomously - is an objective criterion that can only be applied to statements of fact. It is fulfilled if the information in question stored about the data subject does not correspond to reality. According to Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR, the "correction" of an incorrect date can be requested. According to what has been said before, this can only be done by bringing the incorrect date into agreement with reality. A right to correction can therefore only arise from Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR if it is certain that the date stored or otherwise processed by the person responsible does not objectively correspond to reality, and if it is also certain that the data specified by the person concerned is correct date actually corresponds to reality.
73Cf. Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 10, 2020, loc. cit., juris marginal note 40 ff. with further references; on the old legal situation: Federal Administrative Court, judgment of September 30, 2015 - 6 C 38/14 -, juris marginal note 10.
74 In the present case, the Chamber cannot form such a certainty of conviction.
75 There is some evidence that the addresses stored by the defendant in the current population register for the plaintiff - at least for the year 1988 - are objectively incorrect (aa). However, the Chamber is not convinced that the information provided by the Complainant regarding the periods of time between the end of 1987 and October 1988 for his respective residential addresses, which the Complainant is requesting to be entered, are objectively correct (bb).
76(aa)
77There is much to suggest that the defendant's population register for the period in dispute is incorrect. From the documents submitted by the plaintiff, it emerges that the plaintiff – contrary to what was stated in the defendant's population register – did not register “B. N.-Straße 00 ”in C. H., which is why he-what the defendant's reporting information from March 20, 2019 was also not evident-was divided off ex officio on April 11, 1988. It also follows from the documents submitted that during the years 1987 and 1988 the plaintiff lived at the address "I.-------straße 00" in L.
78(bb)
79The correctness of the moving-in and moving-out data he named but not listed in the population register ("B. N. -straße 00" in C. H. : moving out on December 31, 1987; moving in: November 1, "I.198 ------straße 00" in L. : moving in: January 1, 1988, moving out: October 31, 1988) the plaintiff is not able to prove - in particular not by means of the documents submitted by him and thus representing party speech.
80These do not provide any information about the specific move-in and move-out dates. You do not respond to this. On the contrary, some of them even contradict the plaintiff's allegations. The notice of the fine issued by the defendant's Office for Public Order on February 21, 1989 shows that, following police investigations, the authority assumed that the plaintiff would still be in residence until November 23, 1988, i.e. after he allegedly left on October 31, 1988 , must have lived in "I.-------straße 00" in L. The letter from the defendant’s building regulations office dated December 22, 1987 was also sent to “I.-------straße 00” in L. after a handwritten correction with the note “please amend”, which in turn contained the information of the plaintiff cannot be reconciled with the fact that he only moved in there on January 1, 1988.
814
82Further measures to clarify the facts regarding the correct address of the plaintiff between the end of 1987 and October 1988 are not available or not to be taken.
83The plaintiff's numerous requests for evidence announced in writing could not be complied with. Requests for evidence are only made if the request is expressly made during the oral hearing, stating the topic and the evidence and is included in the minutes as a request made orally. A request for evidence formulated in a brief is merely a suggestion.
84 Cf. Schoch/Schneider/Dawin/Panzer, 41 EL July 2021, VwGO § 86 Rn. 97 f.
85 Nor did the court have to force itself to pursue the applications for evidence announced in writing. For the aforementioned reasons (3.) regarding the move-in and move-out dates, the plaintiff's submissions were unsubstantiated, inconclusive and in parts even contradictory.
86 Cf. Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 17, 2011 - 14 A 1554/10 -, juris para. 4 with further references.
87 The plaintiff, whose transfer requests of March 24 and 25, 2022 were rejected by resolutions of the same day, missed the opportunity to take part in the oral hearing and to submit any requests for evidence or to clarify the aforementioned contradictions.
88 The request of the plaintiff, which persists - even after the defendant's administrative procedures have been submitted - to request the defendant, setting a deadline, to submit the "complete registration files relating to the registration relationship of the plaintiff, his wife S. T. and his son V. T. " and in the event an unsuccessful expiry of the deadline by the plaintiff to order the "inspection" of the administrative processes "by the Chamber "in camera"" was not to be met.
89The obligation to keep files is intended to document the course of events truthfully and completely and thus serves to ensure lawful administrative action in two ways. The documentation should record the course of events as they happened, verifiable in every respect. It should not only serve the interests of those involved or the decision-making authority, but also form the basis for the continuous exercise of legal and technical supervision and for parliamentary control of administrative action. At the same time, the obligation to keep records truthfully and completely has a preventive effect on administrative action in that it strengthens the motivation for universally lawful administrative action and makes unlawful administrative action more difficult.
90Cf. Federal Administrative Court, decision of March 16, 1988 - 1 B 153.87 -, juris para. 11; Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of December 3, 2021 - 11 A 1958/20 -, juris para. 72 f.
91A file that appears to be properly managed generally has the presumption of completeness and correctness, while improper file management can lead to a reversal of the burden of proof.
92Cf. NK-VwVfG/Rüdiger Engel, 2nd edition 2019, VwVfG § 29 marginal number 38, 39.
93The court has no doubts that the defendant has kept the files relating to the plaintiff truthfully and completely and has complied with its obligation under Section 99 (1) sentence 1 VwGO to submit the complete files to the court. In particular, according to the court, there are no indications that parts of the files were withheld.
The plaintiff was also unable to present or even prove such indications in a concrete and substantiated manner.
95The mere fact that the administrative process submitted by the defendant only goes back to March 2019 and does not cover the time before that does not allow this conclusion. The fact that parts of the file are destroyed after a certain period of time, as the defendant puts forward as the reason for the potential lack of any documents from the period decisive in the dispute in 1988, is understandable and conclusive.
96The destruction of files can be considered for a point in time when it is certain that the files no longer fulfill a documentation function that ensures the lawfulness of the administration.
97Cf. Federal Administrative Court, decision of March 16, 1988, loc.cit., para. 13.
98 Such is the case here.
99The destruction of the administrative processes is not objectionable. The period in question was more than 30 years ago. The parties involved neither submitted nor is it otherwise apparent that the reporting relationship in 1988, which was first discussed with the plaintiff's request for correction in March 2019, had previously been disputed between the parties involved. In the 31 years preceding this request, the defendant had no indication whatsoever that the relevant administrative processes could be of importance, so that the findings and documents contained in these should have been secured. In any case, after the more than 30 years in question here, the defendant no longer had to reckon with it according to general life experience. In addition, it is common administrative practice not to keep documents available for longer than 30 years.
100Cf. for example: filing guidelines for the processing and administration of documents in federal ministries based on the decision of the federal cabinet of July 11, 2001, Annex 5 I.; § 113 Federal Civil Servants Act; Huck/Müller/Huck, 3rd edition 2020, VwVfG Section 29 marginal number 12; Grundmann/Greve: NVwZ 2015, 1726.
101Furthermore, it is not clear, regardless of the considerable passage of time, which specific documents should be missing from the defendant's administrative process. After the plaintiff had stated in his brief of May 18, 2021 that he had extensive correspondence with the defendant from their registration files under registration law, he only submitted such documents when asked by the court in a brief of September 30, 2021, which in the opinion of the Chamber would not have had to be included in a file of the defendant's registration authority in order to comply with proper file management. Because it is correspondence between the registration authority and another addressee (here: the plaintiff's son) and between the plaintiff (or his wife) and other authorities of the defendant (here: the lower building control authority, the office for public order and the Tax Office) and a judgment by the Cologne Finance Court. However, each authority – even if it is from the same legal entity – conducts its own administrative processes. As a rule, a separate administrative process is also created for each individual affected person. The documents submitted would therefore have been assigned to other administrative processes, at least not to those for the plaintiff at the registration authority of the defendant.
1025
103The decision on the burden of proof to be made according to the above is to the detriment of the plaintiff and leads to the dismissal of the lawsuit. The correctness of the move-in and move-out dates last given by the plaintiff for the disputed period under the address “B. N. straße 00" in C. H. - in particular the interim move out on December 31, 1987 and back in on November 1, 1988 - is, as already stated, not with the certainty required for a judicial conviction ("non liquet") .
104If the person concerned asserts a claim for correction based on Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR against the institution of a German registration authority, a personal date entered in the population register and from their point of view “incorrect” by another, from their point of view “correct” To replace the date, a "non liquet" does not mean that the person concerned has a right to entry of the date specified by him by way of "correction". Rather, the action in such a case - and so here too - is to be dismissed according to the relevant applicable burden of proof rules of national law.
105Cf. Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 10, 2020, loc.cit., paragraph 98 ff. with further references and comments on the dispute; dr Hans-Jürgen Schaffland; Gabriele Holthaus in: Schaffland/Wiltfang, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)/Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), Article 16 Right to Correction, para. 18.
106The general rules on the burden of proof based on the administrative procedure laws of the federal states, according to which the person who asserts a claim has to prove the actual prerequisites for this claim, also apply to the right of the person concerned to correct and supplement the claim. This applies in particular to all data that the person concerned has provided or failed to provide in connection with a reportable process or which, due to the nature of the matter, can only come from him/herself,
107 cf. Süssmuth in: Süssmuth, Federal Registration Act, 31st supplementary delivery, § 12 correction and supplementation of data, para. 13,
108which applies to the change of address not reported by the plaintiff himself.
109From what has been said above, it follows that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for the factual requirements of the claim under Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR that are favorable to him. Since the correctness of the move-in and move-out data given by the plaintiff in the period at issue, as stated, is not demonstrably true even after the defendant and the court have fulfilled their duty to determine the facts, the lawsuit must be dismissed.
110The decision on costs follows from Section 154 (1) VwGO.
111 Instructions on legal remedies
112The parties involved are entitled to appeal against this judgment to the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia if it is permitted by the latter. The appeal is allowed only if
1131141. there are serious doubts as to the correctness of the judgment,
1152. the case presents particular factual or legal difficulties,
1163. the case is of fundamental importance,
1174. the judgment deviates from a decision of the Higher Administrative Court, the Federal Administrative Court, the Joint Senate of the highest federal courts or the Federal Constitutional Court and is based on this deviation or
1185. a procedural violation subject to the assessment of the court of appeal is asserted and exists on which the decision can be based.
119The admission of the appeal is to be applied for in writing within one month after service of the judgment at the Cologne Administrative Court, Appellhofplatz, 50667 Cologne. The request for leave to appeal must specify the contested judgment.
120The reasons for which the appeal is to be allowed must be presented within two months of the full judgment being served. The justification must be submitted in writing to the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Aegidiikirchplatz 5, 48143 Münster, unless it has already been submitted with the application.
121On the obligation to transmit documents as electronic documents in accordance with §§ 55a, 55d Administrative Court Code - VwGO - and the regulation on the technical framework of the electronic Legal transactions and via the special electronic official mailbox (Electronic Legal Transactions Ordinance - ERVV).
122Before the Higher Administrative Court and in the case of procedural acts that initiate proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court, each party involved must be represented by a legal representative. Attorneys at law or legal teachers at a state or state-recognized university in a member state of the European Union, another state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area or Switzerland who are qualified to hold judicial office are authorized representatives and also employees of public authorities and legal entities or employees of other authorities or legal entities under public law who are qualified to hold judicial office. In addition, the persons who are otherwise designated in § 67 Para. 4 of the Administrative Court Code are admitted.
123The application should be submitted in duplicate. If an electronic document is submitted, no copies are required.
124Resolution
125The value of the disputed item is increased
€1265,000.00
127fixed.
128reasons
129The fixed value in dispute corresponds to the statutory value in dispute at the time the action is filed (§ 52 Para. 2 GKG).
130 Instructions on legal remedies
131A complaint against this decision can be lodged in writing or for the record with the clerk of the office at the Cologne Administrative Court, Appellhofplatz, 50667 Cologne.
132The complaint is to be filed within six months after the decision on the main matter has become final or after the procedure has otherwise been settled. If the amount in dispute has been determined later than one month before the end of this period, it can still be filed within one month after the delivery or informal notification of the determination resolution.
133On the obligation to transmit documents as electronic documents in accordance with §§ 55a, 55d Administrative Court Code - VwGO - and the regulation on the technical framework of the electronic Legal transactions and via the special electronic official mailbox (Electronic Legal Transactions Ordinance - ERVV).
134The complaint is only admissible if the value of the object of the complaint exceeds 200 euros.
135The notice of appeal should be submitted in duplicate. If an electronic document is submitted, no copies are required.
